And old movie from my youth in the sevenths "Nicholas and Alexandra"
A little more recent, but not by much, "In The Name of The Father" "Some Mothers Sons", "Bloody Sunday" and "Omagh"

In The Name Of The Father is a fine film but unfortunately is far from accurate. Dublin doubles for Belfast and Liverpool for London in most outdoor scenes and large amounts of the prison footage are pure fiction (including Gerry and Guiseppe being in the same nick IIRC). Omagh wasn't shot in Omagh either, it was filmed in Navan.

Okay so location is off but the contend isn't. location however is nit-picking.

So how is portraying a man as being in a prison with his son when he was in fact somewhere else entirely not 'off' content? It is an inaccuracy.
As for nit picking, by those standards we can consider Pirates of the Caribbean to be a historically accurate movie.

there are no german records at all that show this 'Major König' ever existed or that the sniper school he taught at in Berlin ever existed. there is though a soviet report that after the war while Zaitsev was in Berlin he was approached by a woman claiming to be the Majors daughter, Zaitsev was immediately evacuated from Berlin to avoid a confrontation.

yet finding an exact source for that also ever happening is also tricky

I enjoyed Master and Commander a lot, but I remember thinking at the time "that's wrong, and that's wrong, and that's wrong...". But that was several years ago now and the only one I recall clearly is how they seemed to routinely sail around in heavy seas with their gunports open. I must watch it again and make a nit-pick list

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tudor chick

Does anyone think the more you know about history the more it spoils movies and novels because you can see the many inaccurate things in them?

... I understand what you mean TC but I don't entirely agree - I think that however familiar you might be with a particular historical event or era, there's no reason why you can't still enjoy a good film.

It's the same with a lot of famous paintings, or historical novels - many are rife with artistic license but none the worse for it. We just need to remember that we're watching/reading/looking at art and artistic interpretation.

The problem of course is when people begin to think that movies etc represent the truth of an event or era. Conversely, a well made film can encourage people to go and find out for themselves how accurate it was... for instance I wonder how many people tried to learn a more accurate history of Wallace because of Braveheart? I know I did, and a lot of films/books/artwork have encouraged me to do this time and again.

Anyway waffle over sorry! To the list I'd just like to add "Theirs Is The Glory", an account of the British Airborne in Operation Market Garden, particularly the Battle of Arnhem. It was made in 1946 and almost all of the characters in it are re-enacting events that they either experienced or saw at first hand. While it obviously bypasses completely many of the more controversial aspects of the story, it's still well worth watching. And it has real German armour in to too :-D

i used to love the movie Kingdom of Heaven but after doing some reading on the crusades its just really annoys me to watch all the terrible inaccuracies and bad character portrayals.

I had similar feelings about "Waterloo", the 1970 one with Rod Steiger as Napoleon ... I loved it when I was about 10, hated it when I started properly studying the history, but years later now I've kind of come round in a circle and just enjoy it for what it is. Of the many inaccuracies in it - a few are irritating, some are funny, and the rest easily ignored.

So how is portraying a man as being in a prison with his son when he was in fact somewhere else entirely not 'off' content? It is an inaccuracy.
As for nit picking, by those standards we can consider Pirates of the Caribbean to be a historically accurate movie.

Ok, In The Name of the Father, is somewhat lacking in accuracy, but siting the location of that film and Omagh is nit-picking.

I had similar feelings about "Waterloo", the 1970 one with Rod Steiger as Napoleon ... I loved it when I was about 10, hated it when I started properly studying the history, but years later now I've kind of come round in a circle and just enjoy it for what it is. Of the many inaccuracies in it - a few are irritating, some are funny, and the rest easily ignored.

Despite all the inaccuracies, I like Steigers rendition of napoleon. Perhaps it is because the other movie attempts at portraying him leave me cold.